ICJ takes up UN request for advisory opinion on Israel’s UNRWA ban
General Assembly has asked for the court’s position on the legality of Israel’s legislation severely limiting refugee agency’s operations in the West Bank and Gaza
Jeremy Sharon is The Times of Israel’s legal affairs and settlements reporter

Israel is facing further entanglements in international courts, with the president of the International Court of Justice agreeing to take up a request to issue an advisory opinion on Israeli legislation banning the operations of the highly contentious UN agency for Palestinian refugees, UNRWA.
Last week the UN General Assembly voted to ask the ICJ for an advisory opinion on Israel’s obligations to facilitate aid to Palestinians, in the wake of the Israeli legislation.
Earlier this week, ICJ President Nawaf Salam took up that request and set a date for February 28, 2025 for the submission of written statements in response to the General Assembly’s request for an advisory opinion on Israel’s recent UNRWA ruling.
Israel’s Foreign Ministry did not immediately reply to a request for comment on whether Israel would file a response to the court.
In previous proceedings at the ICJ for an advisory opinion on the legality of Israel’s ongoing rule in “the occupied Palestinian territories,” Israel submitted a brief four-page response, but declined to send a legal delegation to The Hague to argue its case in court.
ICJ advisory opinions are non-binding, but they can hold significant weight and have been cited in other legal forums, such as the International Criminal Court and domestic courts.

The resolution approved by the UNGA last week, sponsored by Norway, asked the ICJ to give its opinion on Israel’s obligations “as an occupying Power and as a member of the United Nations” regarding UN operations “including its agencies and bodies,” and with regards to “the unhindered provision of urgently needed supplies essential to the survival of the Palestinian civilian population.”
Israel in October passed legislation with a large majority in the Knesset, including opposition parties, prohibiting UNRWA from functioning in sovereign Israeli territory, which under Israeli law includes East Jerusalem, where the agency has a significant presence. It is set to take effect next month.
The legislation also prohibited state agencies from having any contact with UNRWA or its representatives, a clause that will likely make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the organization to operate in Gaza.
The measures were passed after it was revealed that some UNRWA staff participated in the October 7 atrocities; Israeli allegations that a significant proportion of its employees have ties to terrorist groups in Gaza; repeated circumstances in which Hamas has used UNRWA infrastructure for terrorist purposes; and evidence that UNRWA’s large educational network incites hatred and violence against Israel.
The UN and other international actors have insisted that UNRWA has been a central player in distributing humanitarian aid in Gaza and providing other key medical and humanitarian services, without which the already dire humanitarian situation in the war-torn territory would deteriorate even further.
Israel argues that UNRWA is no longer a major actor in Gaza, with other groups taking on aid work.
Opponents of the legislation also allege that the measures violate the UN charter and international law.
Anne Herzberg, legal adviser to the pro-Israel NGO Monitor organization, has dismissed these allegation, insisting that Israel had no inherent obligation to permit and cooperate with the activities of any one particular organization.
“Nothing in the UN charter says that a UN agency has the unfettered right to operate in a country, particularly when that agency has violated the terms of its mandate and engaged in criminal activity. that’s complete nonsense,” said Herzberg, referring to UNRWA’s alleged culpability in terrorist activity.

Prof. Eliav Lieblich, an expert in international law at Tel Aviv University’s Faculty of Law, said, however, that in general “an occupying power can’t say no to international aid operations in occupied territories.”
The state argued at Israel’s High Court of Justice as recently as November that it is not an occupying power in Gaza under the terms of international law, claiming it still does not have effective control of the territory, a critical requirement for occupation, although many experts, including Lieblich, reject that claim. The High Court is yet to rule on that issue.
Lieblich also pointed to Article 59 of the Fourth Geneva Convention requiring an occupying power to “agree to relief schemes” and facilitate them if a civilian population is inadequately supplied.
The article does not, however, stipulate that any specific agency must be involved in such efforts, stating instead that states or impartial humanitarian organizations should carry out relief operations.
It is also possible that the legislation does not technically constitute a ban on UNRWA’s operations in Gaza. The law prohibits Israeli state agencies, including the IDF, Defense Ministry and others, from cooperating with or having contact with UNRWA, but does not explicitly ban the organization from Gaza.
But the agency’s operations will become extremely difficult when the law takes effect in January, since Israel currently controls all border entry points into Gaza.
Aid collection and distribution operations require coordination with the IDF and Israel’s Coordinator for Government Activities in the Territories agency, while other humanitarian operations in Gaza would also likely be at risk without cooperation with the military.